NBC Fires Reporter Peter Arnett

Originally posted by Ziroc: Originally posted by Lil Lil: Quote: The Daily Mirror can have him. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sure can! I'm just shocked that he TOOK the job! lol. With the rep TDM has.[/QUOTE][img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] no kidding! It'd be like seeing Barbara Walters or Walter Cronkite all of a sudden working for the National Enquirer.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: Quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: Originally posted by Lil Lil: Quote: The Daily Mirror can have him. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sure can! I'm just shocked that he TOOK the job! lol. With the rep TDM has.[/QUOTE]The Daily Mirror, through opposing the war in Iraq, has become immensly popular in the UK. It always was one of the big boys on the newspaper stage, but with all the anti-war feeling here in the UK, it's firm anti-war stance has boosted it's already considerable readership.

Yes, it is blatently anti-war, and I disagree with many (well, most) of the things it says, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's readership in it's home country views it as 'propoganda' - roughly half of the population agrees with it and sees it as the only publication to have the guts to stand up to the ruling parties.

On the topic of Mr Arnett, the first thing that jumped out at me was the statement

NBC fired journalist Peter Arnett on Monday, saying it was wrong for him to give an interview with state-run Iraqi TV in which he said the American-led coalition's initial plan for the war had failed because of Iraq's resistance.

Excuse my confusion, but I wasn't aware that journalists were now being briefed to the point where they can confidently declare that any military plan was succeeding or failing, and the reasons therefore. That isn't the case over here, and I doubt it is the case over there. I think he should remember he is a journalist, and his military opinions are just that - opinions. If you don't mind, I'll wait for a more authoritative source to tell me about the progress of the current plan in action.[/QUOTE]You got it. I hate it when ANY reporter acts like they know what is going on. If they DID, you'd see 4 stars on him collars.

I personally think that a lot of these reporters like to 'Create news' instead of reporting news. Mr. Arnett told a HUGE lie back in the 1991 War and CNN fired him. So, it's nothing new with Peter. His ego is too big I think..

[Skunk]

So are we to simply trust General Franks that everything is proceeding to plan then? Personally, I have a hard time coming over to this concept of blindly trusting the statements of individuals with vested interest in a given issue.

I also do not see a problem with journalists offering opinions. There are many CNN journalists who are also offering alternative opinions on the war - no-one is screaming at them that they are not qualified, are they?

[Seraph]

I also do not see a problem with journalists offering opinions. There are many CNN journalists who are also offering alternative opinions on the war - no-one is screaming at them that they are not qualified, are they?

I personally think its probably more where he said it then what he said. Its one thing to say that you think the US might be having problems. Its another to take that idea and use it give aid to the enemy. Arnett has shown in the past that he'll do anything for attention, and its come around to bite him in the ass again.

He said the Iraqis allowed him to stay in Baghdad because they respect him and ''see me as a fellow warrior.''

I think that speaks to the kind of person he is.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: So are we to simply trust General Franks that everything is proceeding to plan then? Personally, I have a hard time coming over to this concept of blindly trusting the statements of individuals with vested interest in a given issue. I also do not see a problem with journalists offering opinions. There are many CNN journalists who are also offering alternative opinions on the war - no-one is screaming at them that they are not qualified, are they?

They are not giving the opinions to the Iraqi government run propaganda network during a war. There is a difference. The problem comes with the propaganda value gained by Saddam from Arnett's interview. If Arnett is publicly saying to the Iraqis that the war has failed, if he is a respected Western voice saying that Saddam is telling his people the truth, then he is helping Saddam get his message out. When Iraqis hear that Saddam is winning are they likely to lay down their weapons or rise up against him?

No one is saying you have to believe anything from CENTCOM. As you mention, there are alternative opinions given frequently and by various sources internationally. Iraqis only hear one message though... the message that Saddam wants them to hear, and Peter Arnett helped spread that message. By doing so, Arnett didn't help the Iraqi people, and may actually have hurt them.

[Sir Taliesin]

Excuse me, but why does everyone think the war plan has gone awry? Because the press says it has? Because some retired Officers, who are paid to help boost a networks ratings, say it has?

Seems to me that it is going very well indeed! We are now within 25 miles (or 19 if you watch/read FOX) of Baghdad. We have completely destroyed a Republican Guard Division (The Baghdad Division) and mangled to others two the extent that they are only 50% effective. We have minimized Saddam's Feydaheen. The British are on the verge of capturing Basria. The Kurds fought a big battle with the Iraqis last night and kicked their butts. They also took out a terrorist militia in the north that has ties to Al Quida, maybe Saddam as well, and possibly had a chemical weapons plant. No Iraqi missiles have been fired at Isreal. The oil fields have been siezed with minimal lose of life and damage to the environment.

Explain to me why the battle plan isn't working again? Did everyone think this was going to be over in a week?

Also don't forget that this was all done without one key piece unit, the 4th ID.
Franks has done a great job in my opinion!